Hacker News Reader

Comment by pseudolus | Hacker News Reader

They can threaten but ultimately it would be a self-defeating move as, after they withdraw, the sky won't fall and other countries will quickly come to the conclusion that crossing Google is a viable option. A dangerous game for Google and a potential win for alternative search engine options.

View on HN

But wouldn't that law apply to other search engines as well?

From what I could gather from the article it's a really stupid ill-thought out law and damages the whole internet in Australia for the benefit of few news companies.

Potentially, but realistically not unless the engine has reached a critical mass. Per the draft code[0] whether or not it applies to your company is up to the Treasurer[1] - see relevant section: https://i.imgur.com/7RSqXDJ.png

There's a major issue here because as a search company you could wake up one day to find that a single person has decided your revenue and expenditure has changed drastically. Even if you believe the spirit of this law is good, the way this is written is downright dangerous.

[0] https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasurer_of_Australia

Sounds like a way to extort political favors.

Sure, it's a stupid law, but that's a separate issue to the idea that Google's response is also self-defeating. We're already laughing at the idea of Google search no longer being available, like do they think we haven't heard of DDG and Startpage?

I think the point is it doesn't matter whether it's self-defeating or not. If the law passes it becomes infeasible for Google search to continue to operate in Australia legally, so they have to shut it off; simple as that. Google isn't making threats, just stating facts.

Startpage is just using Google data, so presumably if it's able to still operate in Australia when Google does not, it'll be missing a lot of relevant recent data for the Australian market.

All the search engine has to do is direct traffic to the site where the article is, not host on AMP and thus collect all the royalties and ad revenue itself.

In the meantime, Google is “experimenting” with leaving out Australian media entirely which on one hand is good (starving Murdoch of oxygen) but on the other hand is terrible (starving everyone of oxygen).

The proposed law lets news companies charge search engines which simply direct traffic to their site (and does not allow search engines to delist the sites). AMP and all of Google's other moves beyond merely being a search engine are irrelevant here.

How long until Murdoch comes for his cut of bing and DDG's revenue too?

I doubt this law explicitly only applies to Google.

That is not true. The law applies to who the Treasurer of Australia decides it applies to.

Australians won't need alternative search engines.

Google can just withdraw their business presence from Australia but continue to provide search.

If after that Australia wants to block Google like China that's on them.

I'm not sure what exactly that would entail, but Google has quite big offices in Sydney and elsewhere. Google Maps came out of Sydney, and I believe a lot of its development still happens there.

Oh sure, it would impact them for sure. Just saying that if they do pull out of Australia, they don't need to stop serving Google Search to Australians. They can just serve it out of a foreign IP address just like Baidu would be for Australians to access.

If they served it out of Singapore or some other place in the region speeds would still be decent.

Simply withdrawing their business presence from Australia would not necessarily remove their liability or remove them from the jurisdiction of Australian courts. The lack of a business presence is not always a shield against long-arm jurisdiction.

How exactly do you think Australia is going to enforce this mandate if Google has no presence in Australia. Are they going to have the military invade California?

We have treaties addressing issues like these, and generally it is an accepted principle of international law that a country can regulate a company that chooses to business with its citizens.

But Google would not be doing business with Australian citizens. It would be serving them webpages, but it would not take nor give them any money. That said, I'm skeptical that such treaties exist. Would you like to point a specific instance of such a treaty out?

"Serving them webpages" is a business activity under international law. The consideration is the ads they show alongside search results.

As for resources on such treaties, visit the OECD website and you'll be inundated with the model treaties that form the basis of the actual treaties between countries. (Some treaties involve many parties, most are between two nations.) Since you're not paying me, I will simply point out that under America's tax treaty with Australia, the Technical Explanation would note that providing services to another country's citizens is an activity covered by the treaty, and Australia's tax office has plenty of documentation saying the same.

Yes but could they do anything? As you said, the lack of a business presence in China was not a shield, and the consequence is that China just blocked them.

Australia would be more than welcome to do the same.

(But hee hee, we secretly know their citizens would protest if they set up a national firewall.)

Would above mean Google stop serving ads in Australia? Clearly it's still in Google interest to serve them from afar but there must be some legalities about that. Previously Adwords for Australia was "run" and billed from Singapore for the tax benefits and they were pressured to end this.

And a plethora of marketing businesses will go batshit on the government if they force Adwords out of Australia. Adwords is a huge part of the industry. We're going to see this sector struggle for a while if they need to re-adjust.

I don't see why they can't serve ads in Australia for other businesses that are based outside Australia but do business in Australia and might want to serve ads to residents there, e.g. Coca-Cola or whatever.

All financial transactions would take place outside Australia, Google wouldn't need a legal entity there.

Exactly. Depart Australia entirely, serve Australians from a foreign IP address, still charge Australian businesses for ads & G-Suite but in USD (comparable rates using card conversion) further devaluing the Australian dollar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com